Aesthetics in Science:A Kantian Proposal

angela breitenbachuniversity of cambridge

p r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e a r i s t o t e l i a n s o c i e t y

issue i | volume cxiii | 2012 - 2013

1 8 8 8 | c e l e b r a t i n g 1 2 5 y e a r s | 2 0 1 3

D r a f tP a p e r&p o d c a s t

p r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e a r i s t o t e l i a n s o c i e t y1 3 4 t h s e s s i o n

i s s u e n o . 1 v o l u m e c x 1 1 12 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3

a e s t h e t i c s i n s c i e n c e :a k a n t i a n a p p r o a c h

a n g e l a b r e i t e n b a c hu n i v e r s i t y o f c a m b r i d g e

m o n d a y, 3 d e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2

1 7 . 3 0 - 1 9 . 1 5

t h e w o b u r n s u i t es e n a t e h o u s eu n i v e r s i t y o f l o n d o nm a l e t s t r e e tl o n d o n w c 1 e 7 h uu n i t e d k i n g d o m

This event is catered, free of charge, &open to the general public

c o n t a c tmail@aristoteliansociety.org.ukwww.aristoteliansociety.org.uk

© 2012 the aristotelian society

b i o g r a p h y

Angela Breitenbach is a Lecturer in the Philosophy Faculty at the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on the history of modern philosophy, in particular the philosophy of Kant, as well as questions in philosophy of science, philosophy of biology, and aesthetics. She has published on various aspects of Kant’s philosophy, and is the author of Die Analogie von Vernunft und Natur (The Analogy of Reason and Nature, de Gruyter 2009).

Angela was educated in Cambridge and Berlin, and held a Junior Research Fellowship at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. She spent the last three years as a Lecturer at the University of East Anglia before moving to Cambridge in October 2012.

e d i t o r i a l n o t e

The following paper is a draft version that can only be cited with the author’s permission. The final paper will be published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Issue No. 1, Volume CXIII (2013). Please visit the Society’s website for subscription information: www.aristoteliansociety.org.uk.

! 1

a e s t h e t i c s i n s c i e n c e : a k a n t i a n p r o p o s a l

a n g e l a b r e i t e n b a c h

Many of the greatest natural philosophers and scientists have attached central importance not only to the empirical success but also the aesthetic merit of their proofs, explanations and theories. Key figures in the history of science, ranging from Johannes Kepler to Henri Poincaré, Albert Einstein, Hermann Weyl, Werner Heisenberg, and Paul Dirac in physics, and from Charles Darwin to James Watson, Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin in biology, were explicitly concerned with beauty and elegance. Poincaré, for example, regarded the beauty of nature as a motivation for scientific enquiry, claiming that the ‘scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful’ (1908, p. 22). Many went further, taking beauty to be not only a motivation for the scientist, but an indication of the truth of theories. As Heisenberg put it, ‘[i]f nature leads us to mathematical forms of great simplicity and beauty […] we cannot help thinking that they are true’ (quoted in Chandrasekhar 1987, p. 65). And, even more pointedly, Einstein argued that the only physical theories we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones (reported in Wigner 1960, p. 5), while Dirac claimed that a ‘theory with [...] beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data’ (1970, 29). Moreover, as Watson remembered, Franklin found the double helix model of the structure of DNA simply ‘too pretty not to be true’ (1968, p. 124).

While this focus on aesthetic considerations may be widespread among scientists, it

raises difficult questions. Why should considerations as possibly subjective and most probably contestable as aesthetic judgments play a role in science with its prima facie aim at securing objective knowledge? What bearing would the beauty of a theory have on the truth of the theory? Can aesthetic criteria legitimately be linked to the truth of scientific claims?1

In the literature, treatments of the relation between the beauty and truth of scientific

theories display two widespread tendencies: Pythagorean approaches, on the one side, affirm an intrinsic connection between beauty and truth, while subjectivist approaches, on the other, see beauty as having, at best, a purely contingent link to the truth of scientific theories. As I shall argue in the next section, however, both views have their problems. While the first fails to account for the apparent instability of the link between beauty and truth attested to by the historical evidence, the second is forced to reject outright a large part of how scientists themselves characterize their research activity when they claim to rely on aesthetic considerations.

My aim in this paper is to propose an alternative conception of beauty in science that

avoids the difficulties on both sides. That is, I seek an account that credits scientists’ aesthetic considerations without relying on an alleged metaphysical connection between beauty and truth. Taking inspiration from Kant’s aesthetic theory, I suggest that we can understand the aesthetic appreciation of scientific claims as linked to the character of our own intellectual

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 For simplicity, I shall focus on the beauty of theories. I believe that my conclusions can be shown to extend beyond theories, however, including aesthetic considerations about hypotheses, explanations, proofs and experiments.

Can aesthetic considerations legitimately be linked to the empirical success of scientific theories? I suggest that a satisfactory answer to this question should account for the apparent attraction that aesthetic considerations seem to have for scientists, while also explaining the apparent instability of the link between the beauty of a theory and its success. I argue that two widespread tendencies in the literature, Pythagorean and subjectivist approaches, have difficulties meeting this challenge. I propose a Kantian conception of aesthetic judgments as second-order considerations, related to our own intellectual capacities for making sense of the world, and argue that it fares better.

!

! 2

activities involved in doing and understanding science. Moreover, I propose that it is because of this relation of aesthetic judgments with the conditions of understanding that scientists have a reason to take considerations of beauty into account. I argue that through their link to understanding aesthetic judgments are legitimately appealing to scientists, even though such judgments are not necessarily an indication of truth.

My proposal is motivated by the observation that discussions of beauty in science

usually focus on the link between beauty and truth without clarifying the conception of aesthetics that informs such discussion. By contrast, I believe that beginning with an analysis of the notion of aesthetics is crucial for shedding light on the role that considerations of beauty can play in the study of nature. By first focussing on the problem of how to understand aesthetic considerations in science, I thus seek to advance debates about the relation of such considerations to the aims of science.

My argument will take the following steps. I start, in section 1, by saying a few words

about the Pythagorean and subjectivist views and the problems they raise. I then spell out my alternative proposal in two steps. In section 2, I propose a Kantian conception of aesthetic judgments in science as second-order judgments that relate only indirectly to the object judged and directly to our own reflection on the object. According to my proposal, we appreciate a theory aesthetically when, in reflecting on the theory, we become aware of our own intellectual capacities for making sense of the world by means of the theory. Moreover, in section 3 I argue that if we take this conception as our starting point, we can provide an account of the role of aesthetics in science that promises to overcome the problems raised by the Pythagorean and subjectivist positions. More specifically, aesthetic considerations may legitimately appeal to scientists not because the phenomena themselves really are simple or elegant but because, in searching for beauty, scientists aim for theories that provide understanding. Although the capacity of a theory to give us understanding of the phenomena is no guarantee for truth, providing understanding is a necessary requirement for a successful theory. I suggest that in their search for truth scientists therefore have a reason to take considerations of beauty into account.

My argument for a Kantian conception of aesthetics in science will thus be indirect.

Instead of attempting to justify the proposed second-order conception of aesthetic judgments head-on, my aim is to present it as a viable alternative that, if adopted, promises to solve the problems facing the Pythagorean and subjectivist accounts. In putting into focus the nature of aesthetic judgments in science, I thus aim to show that, insofar as we conceive of aesthetic considerations as essentially connected to understanding, we can regard such considerations as legitimately appealing to scientists. While my discussion of such large issues as the relationship of beauty, understanding and truth will be largely programmatic, I thus aim to map out the framework for a more detailed investigation into the nature and function of aesthetic considerations in science.

1. two tendencies: pythagoreanism and subjectivism

Many scientists who explicitly engage with the question of beauty in their work seem to harbour what I shall call ‘Pythagorean’ tendencies.2 The core idea here is that there exists a profound and intrinsic connection between the beautiful, on the one hand, and truth on the other. More specifically, I think that we should understand this view as a combination of two claims, the first about the nature of aesthetic judgments, the second about the link of such judgments to truth.

First, according to the Pythagorean conception, it is commonly suggested that aesthetic

considerations do not consist in any subjective, idiosyncratic response but in the intellectual

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 Chandrasekhar (1987) gives an account of the prevalence of this Pythagorean conception amongst physical scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries. For more recent presentations of this view, see A. Zee (1999) and Livio (2000). Cf. Bangu’s (2006) distinction between different strands of Pythagoreanism.

! 3

grasp of certain properties such as those of simplicity, symmetry or unity among diversity. Aesthetic judgments in science, according to this conception, are judgments about the objective features of theories. Poincaré gives a clear statement of this view when he claims that the kind of beauty which is relevant to science is not ‘that beauty which strikes the senses’; it is a ‘special’ kind of beauty, a ‘beauty which comes from the harmonious order of its [i.e. the science’s] parts, and which a pure intelligence can grasp’ (1908, p. 22). Beauty, Poincaré here claims, is a property that has to do with harmonious order, it is a property to which we have intellectual access.

Second, it is then usually assumed that theories which have aesthetic properties are

more likely to be true than those which lack such properties because nature itself has corresponding aesthetic qualities. On this account a simple theory is more likely to be true than one which adds extra complexity, for instance, because the natural world is governed by simple laws. Thus, if the beauty of Darwin’s theory of evolution consists in its simplicity, then its simplicity would, in turn, give insight into the simplicity of the principle underlying the evolution of species. According to the Pythagorean account, a theory’s aesthetic features are thus intrinsically tied to its truth because they track real properties in the phenomena. As the physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar puts it, ‘what the human mind perceives as beautiful finds its realization in nature’ (1987, p. 28).

While this approach accounts for the aesthetic considerations that are often introduced

in science, it faces serious problems. I shall mention two of the most pressing, relating to the two parts of the Pythagorean conception. The first concerns the objective status of aesthetic judgments, the second deals with the link between aesthetic judgments and truth.3 Thus, scientists have not always agreed on which theories should or should not be regarded as beautiful, and aesthetic judgments in science have varied over time and with social and cultural context. Thus, some theories were rejected as awkward and even ugly at first, but considered natural and elegant from later perspectives. For example, in the 17th century, many rejected Kepler’s elliptic model of planetary motion on aesthetic grounds. Kepler’s ellipses did not seem to cohere with the commitment of mathematical astronomy to uniform circular motion. But what may have jarred with the aesthetic ideals of harmony and simplicity, fitted nicely with an increasingly popular Mannerist conception of aesthetics that makes room for more playful forms.4 Similarly, with the rise of Romanticism in the 19th century, new aesthetic ideals such as that of organic unity swept through the sciences.5 If aesthetic appreciation is open to variation between different scientists and historical periods, however, then this raises questions about the proclaimed objectivity of aesthetic judgments in science.

Moreover, as the history of science attests, aesthetics has not always been a reliable

guide to truth. Theories that were considered preferable on aesthetic grounds have in fact failed, while theories that were rejected on aesthetic grounds by some have been corroborated over time. Thus, Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation were widely considered as offering an elegant explanation of a vast body of astronomical observations. But while they provided fundamental steps in the development of modern physics, they were precisely that, steps to be advanced upon and superseded by modern physics. Moreover, many physicists have found quantum theory, with its lack of visualization and its apparent implications of indeterminism, aesthetically displeasing.6 And yet, quantum physics is alive and well today. The historical evidence thus raises serious doubts about the proclaimed intrinsic connection between the beauty of a theory and its truth.

Should we conclude, then, that scientists’ judgments of beauty have purely subjective validity? And should we regard the aesthetic appreciation of a theory as having at best a contingent connection to its truth? The tendency to give positive answers to these questions

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 For a discussion of further problems, see McAllister (1996, pp. 90 ff.). 4 Cf. Jardine (1998) 5 Cf. Holmes (2009) 6 On Dirac’s rejection of quantum physics because of its ugliness, see Dyson (1986, p. 103). On Einstein’s rejection of indeterminism as an aesthetic response to quantum theory, see Hoffman and Dukas (1972, pp. 193 ff.).

! 4

competes with the Pythagorean approach in the literature. According to such subjectivist views, aesthetic considerations have no objective validity and, hence, lack any intrinsic or necessary connection with the truth of scientific claims. Chandrasekhar expresses this view when he claims that ‘[t]o examine a physical theory, and to state its aesthetic appeal is beset with difficulties. Like all discussions relating to beauty, it is subject to the tastes and temperaments of the individuals’ (1987, p. 153). And, in a related vein, James McAllister argues that ‘scientists’ canons for theory evaluation will be prey to [aesthetic] fashions’ (1997, p. 85).

The subjectivist conclusion has the advantage of accounting for the apparent instability

of the connection between beauty and truth in the history of science. The difficulty is, however, that it rejects outright the significance that scientists attribute to aesthetic considerations. Scientists may think that a beautiful theory points towards its truth, but, according to the subjectivist proposal, they would be judging incorrectly. Scientists may think that beauty has a value in science over and above our idiosyncratic interests, but again they would be mistaken. While I do not want to rule out that this deflationary proposal may in the end turn out to be correct, I wonder whether it is a little too quick in dismissing the attraction of aesthetic considerations in science. Can we do better in explaining the consistent appeal that aesthetic considerations seem to exert on scientists?

The difficulties raised by these two opposed tendencies inform the desiderata that, I

suggest, an account of aesthetics in science should satisfy. In the following two sections, I propose an approach that aims to account for both the difficulty associated with the attempt to establish an intrinsic connection between beauty and truth, and the apparent attraction that aesthetic considerations nevertheless have for many scientists. I thus aim to develop a conception of beauty in science that can account for the apparently instable link of beauty and truth, while also going some way towards showing that this link is not altogether arbitrary.

2. beauty and understanding

I would like to propose a different way of thinking about aesthetic judgments in science that construes such judgments as neither consisting in objective claims about the particular properties of scientific theories (as the Pythagorean view proposes), nor relying on purely subjective responses to such properties (as the subjectivist account holds). Instead, I suggest that we understand aesthetic judgments as responses to the experienced fit between our intellectual capacities and the phenomena the theory helps us to understand. My proposal is inspired by Kant’s conception of aesthetics. I shall therefore say a few words about the key elements of Kant’s approach, before examining how it may shed light on the particular case of aesthetics in science.

Judgments of beauty, according to Kant, are essentially dependent on the subject’s

active engagement with the object. They do not make any determinate claim about a property in the object but are the result of the subject’s way of reflecting on the object. It is this mode of reflection, Kant claims, that we experience as aesthetically pleasing. Kant thus essentially contrasts judgments of beauty with claims about the objective features of the world. At the same time, however, he also distinguishes aesthetic judgments from ordinary emotional responses. Rather than consisting in purely subjective feelings, which may vary between individuals depending on their particular interests and preferences, aesthetic responses demand the agreement of others. Even though they are not anchored in any objective property by reference to which they could be justified, they make a claim to inter-subjective validity.

Kant develops this two-fold characterization of judgments of beauty in the Critique of

Jugdment by reference to what he calls the ‘free play’ of our mental faculties, that is, the spontaneous interaction of understanding and imagination (2000, p. 103; V 218). In aesthetic experiences, Kant argues, we play around in imagination with what we perceive through the senses in a way that is compatible (or ‘in harmony’) with conceptual understanding, without however settling on any determinate conception of the object (2000, p. 103; V 218). By

! 5

combining and recombining various features of our sensory impressions of the perceived object in imagination, we present it to ourselves as something that makes sense to us, that could be understood, without representing it as an object of any particular kind. It is our awareness of the intellectual activities involved in reflectively engaging with the object in this way, an awareness that is not distracted by any conceptual representation of the object, that triggers the feeling of aesthetic pleasure. More specifically, it is our awareness that our intellectual capacities are in harmony, that is, that they are suited for understanding the object of reflection, that is experienced as aesthetically pleasing. As Kant puts it, ‘we are conscious’ of the activity of our mental faculties ‘with the sensation of satisfaction’ (2000, p. 90; V 204). Aesthetic pleasure, therefore, does not result from the satisfaction of any particular preferences of the individual, or from the recognition that the object has such and such properties, but from the individual’s being aware, in reflecting on the object, of her own intellectual capacities and their general fit for understanding the world around us. Furthermore, since we all have the same intellectual capacities, aesthetic judgments essentially incorporate a claim to the agreement of others.

While one may take issue with the details of Kant’s story about the free play of the

faculties, I believe that the account offers two important insights that may shed light on the particular problem of aesthetics in science. First, on Kant’s conception, an aesthetic judgment is a second-order response. It is not a first-order judgment about any aesthetic property in the object. This construal of judgments of beauty accounts for the fact that, even if we knew all the properties of an object, it would nevertheless be an open question whether or not the object is beautiful. Whether or not the object can or will be judged beautiful furthermore depends on the viewer, and her reflection on the object. Second, while an aesthetic judgment is only indirectly concerned with the object of experience, it is directly related to our intellectual activities involved in reflecting on the object. This further aspect of Kant’s conception accounts for the thought that, even though we cannot definitively prove the adequacy of an aesthetic judgment by pointing to particular features of the object, we do not regard the judgment as entirely contingent upon the individual’s subjective point of view. Rather, we seem to regard such judgments as being similar to objective judgments in virtue of containing a claim to universality. It is this feature which distinguishes aesthetic judgments from claims about ordinary feelings where we do not want to insist that others come to feel about things in the way in which we do. It also accounts, I believe, for the phenomenological difference between aesthetic experiences and other emotional reactions. Only the former but not the latter appear to engage us intellectually.

Taking these two Kantian claims on board, I propose to construe the ascription of

beauty to a scientific theory as similarly concerned with a second-order response to our intellectual engagement with the theory. More specifically, I suggest that it is a response to our awareness of a fit between our intellectual capacities and the phenomena that we come to understand by means of the theory. In regarding a theory as beautiful, we are not directly responding to what the theory says (e.g. that it derives the law ‘F=ma’), or to how the theory says it (e.g. that it derives the law through a series of simple steps), but to our awareness of the power of our intellectual capacities for understanding the world. More specifically, in aesthetic judgments, we express our awareness of the fit between our intellectual capacities and the phenomena, a fit of which we become aware through our understanding of the theory.7

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 It may be objected that, strictly speaking, feelings of the kind described are only improperly called ‘aesthetic’ on Kant’s account. Kant explicitly construes the free play of imagination and understanding that grounds aesthetic judgments as non-conceptual. But scientific understanding is essentially conceptual. A number of commentators have therefore concluded that science is not the kind of thing that can be regarded aesthetically on Kant’s account. E.g., Rueger (1997), Koriako (1999, 154 ff.), and Wenzel (2001) who discuss the particular case of mathematics. See also Giordanetti's (1995) treatment of the relationship of genius, artist and scientist in Kant. I cannot discuss this problem of Kant scholarship here, and do not intend to defend any exegetical claims in the paragraph above. I believe, however, that the objection is ultimately misguided. First, Kant explicitly recognises the possibility of beauty in mathematics (Kant 2000, pp. 238 f., V 366). On Kant’s account, mathematical proofs can elicit in us a sense of aesthetic appreciation because they make us aware of the creative intellectual activities involved in the process of mathematical reasoning. The pleasure we feel in mathematics is thus

! 6

Aesthetic judgments in science are thus essentially self-reflective on my proposal, since they ultimately rely on a reflection on our own intellectual capacities. This reflection may come in different forms. It may be reflection on the intellectual activities involved in first constructing a theory and gaining understanding of the phenomena that the theory purports to explain. For instance, Heisenberg describes his aesthetic appreciation of quantum mechanics as a feeling of excitement about the insight he gained through his own calculations that led him to the formulation of his theory (Chandrasekhar, 1987, pp. 53 ff.). Similarly, the reflection may be one on our intellectual engagement with an already extant theory by means of which we gain understanding of the world. Thus, Darwin’s theory of evolution may strike us as beautiful when, through it, we become aware that we can understand a host of apparently messy phenomena by means of a simple idea. In both cases of the construction of new theories and the understanding of extant ones, I thus suggest, we can understand the aesthetic appreciation of the theory as ultimately a response to our own intellectual capacities involved in gaining understanding of the natural world by means of the theory.

The proposed conception can, I believe, account for the fact that features of a theory

including, for example, its simplicity, capacity to unify a variety of phenomena, explanatory power, and fruitfulness have typically been regarded as aesthetic. For, by theories with these properties, we can make phenomena understandable to us and thus become aware of the fit between our intellectual capacities and the phenomena we aim to understand. It seems plausible to suggest that a simple theory makes understanding easier; a unified theory helps us understand a variety of phenomena in a way that draws out the relations between those phenomena; a theory with strong explanatory power makes understanding of a large set of phenomena possible by subsuming them under a smaller number of general principles; and a fruitful theory enables understanding in other areas of enquiry. Furthermore, a theory may strike us as more or less beautiful depending on whether understanding is achieved more or less easily by means of the theory. And whether understanding is achieved more or less easily may, in turn, depend on whether the theory instantiates such properties as simplicity or unity.

Moreover, while the proposed conception can account for the Classic aesthetic criteria

that have received much attention in the physical and mathematical sciences, it also leaves room for other aesthetic criteria. It can, for example, account for Kepler’s Mannerist conception according to which theories that express how the monstrous and chaotic can be produced by a simple ordering principle are regarded as aesthetically pleasing.8 They can be regarded as aesthetically pleasing, on the proposed account, precisely because they provide understanding of the appearance of chaos by reference to a simple principle. The advantage of the Kantian proposal is thus that it promises to explain the apparent diversity of aesthetic criteria in different sciences, cultural settings and historical periods as grounded in a common constant, that is, the felt harmony between the world and the requirements of our intellect. For it is not simply these aesthetic properties as simplicity, unity, etc., that determine whether a theory may be judged beautiful. Rather, we ascribe beauty to theories with such qualities, insofar as theories with these properties make us aware of the suitability of our own intellectual capacities for understanding the phenomena that the theory aims to explain. What are commonly regarded as aesthetic criteria are thus properties of theories that are only indirectly the source of an aesthetic response, where such a response directly relates to our own intellectual capacities.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!only indirectly a response to a particular demonstration, and directly linked to the spontaneous activity of our conceptual and imaginative capacities. For a detailed discussion of this, see Breitenbach (forthcoming). Moreover, even though Kant does not explicitly leave room for beauty in the empirical sciences, I believe that more can be said to demonstrate its possibility on his account. Even if scientific theory is spelt out and understood conceptually, its discovery and our ability to apply it to natural phenomena nevertheless requires intellectual processes that ultimately include spontaneous and non-conceptual activities. 8 Cf. Hallyn (1990)

! 7

3. beauty, understanding, and truth

How, then, does this conception of aesthetics shed light on the relation between aesthetic considerations and the truth of theories? I want to suggest that even though aesthetic considerations do not provide an infallible indication for true theories, they offer a legitimate guide for scientists. Moreover, this proposal fulfils the desiderata for a satisfactory answer to the question of beauty in science. By contrast with the subjectivist, we can account for the instability of the connection between the beauty of a theory and its success, without construing aesthetic judgments as entirely contingent on subjective considerations. Against the Pythagorean, we can account for a legitimate pull of aesthetic considerations on scientists without recourse to any metaphysical connection between beauty and truth. Let me develop these two claims in turn.

The apparently instable link between aesthetic judgments and the success of theories in

the history of science is compatible with the proposed conception insofar as there are various ways in which beauty and understanding may come apart. Some theories may help us understand certain phenomena, but not strike us as beautiful. Other theories may please us aesthetically, yet turn out to be mistaken. Thus, we may gain understanding of the world by means of a theory without finding it beautiful. A case such as this underwrites the claim that the beauty of a theory is not simply determined by its helping us achieve understanding. It is triggered by a further reflection resulting in our awareness of the apparent fit between our capacities of understanding and the phenomena to be understood. Such awareness may depend on aspects of the theory; some theories may help us understand and yet not make us aware of the suitability of our intellectual capacities for understanding the phenomena, for instance, because the theory is so complicated that understanding is gained only with difficulty. Alternatively, the awareness of fit may depend on the perspective of the viewer; she may be too preoccupied with understanding the theory in order to appreciate it aesthetically.

In other cases, moreover, we may consider a theory beautiful when we believe it helps

us understand the world, regardless of whether that belief is correct. If we are mistaken about our belief that we have understood something, aesthetic appreciation may thus fail to track genuine understanding. In trivial cases, where we have simply overlooked an important aspect of the phenomena to be explained, or are confused about an element of the theory, such mistakes can be corrected. In less trivial cases, theories may be considered beautiful by a whole generation of scientists even if they later turn out to be false. In such cases, it seems nevertheless plausible to say that the theories were considered beautiful given that, within their context and against the relevant background knowledge, they appeared to provide understanding of the phenomena. Moreover, we may be able to appreciate the beauty of a failed theory, on the condition that we take such background considerations into account. By imaginatively projecting ourselves into the cognitive context of a particular time or place, we can appreciate the capacity of a theory to provide understanding. In this way, we may be able to see the beauty of the Ptolemaic system, for instance, even knowing that it does not give a true account of the phenomena.

Neither of these cases in which beauty and understanding come apart contradicts the

claim that in regarding a theory as beautiful, we express delight in the fit between our capacities for understanding and the phenomena to be understood. And yet, the subjectivist challenge may now appear particularly pressing. For if aesthetic judgments indicate only our awareness of gaining understanding, where this awareness may fail to track truth, then the link between the beauty of a theory and its truth appears contingent after all. I suggest, however, that even if our awareness of gaining understanding of the phenomena and, by virtue of this, our aesthetic responses are not sufficient indication for actually having a true account of the phenomena, scientists nevertheless have a reason to take aesthetic considerations into account. This is because, in seeking beauty, scientists search for understanding of the world. Providing understanding, moreover, is an essential requirement for any successful true theory. Since aesthetic judgments are responses to intellectual processes that condition such understanding, aesthetic considerations therefore provide a helpful guide in our search for

! 8

successful theories. It is for this reason that aesthetic considerations can be regarded as having a legitimate pull on scientists, even if they are not infallible.9

The proposed Kantian account does not yet tell us how to distinguish good from bad,

and successful from unsuccessful, aesthetic judgments. It does not yet formulate criteria for identifying those aesthetic responses that will likely lead to true theories. But it shows that considerations of beauty do not have to be regarded as entirely contingent responses, to be relegated from science. It is this conclusion that sheds light on the apparently peculiar fact that, on the one hand, scientists have a reason to be guided in their enquiries by aesthetic considerations while, on the other, relying on such guidance has also often led them astray.

I have thus proposed to understand aesthetic judgments in science, following Kant’s

conception of aesthetics, as second-order responses to the awareness of the fit between our capacities of understanding and the phenomena to be understood. I have argued, moreover, that if aesthetic judgments are understood in this way, then we can explain why they have a legitimate appeal on scientists whose aim is to give a true account of the phenomena, while also accounting for the fact that the historical evidence speaks against a stable connection between beauty and truth. The proposed claim is conditional. In other words, I do not argue that every aesthetic judgment ever made or ever to be made in science is of the kind that fits my proposal. For all I know, scientists and philosophers of science may use aesthetic expressions in very different ways. Instead, I propose that if we understand aesthetic considerations in science as second-order responses to the awareness of the fit between our intellectual capacities for understanding and the phenomena to be understood, we can advance debates about aesthetics in the philosophy of science. The proposed Kantian conception of beauty in science, I thus conclude, offers a promising framework for investigating into the nature and role of aesthetic considerations in science.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9 One may think that the beauty-truth connection depends, in the end, on what particular conception of the relationship between ‘understanding’ and truth we presuppose. I think, however, that at this point, my account can remain relatively neutral with respect to this question. While I favour a transcendental reading following Friedman (1979 and 1999), that takes truth to fall out of the ideal end of an on-going process of gaining understanding, I believe that the proposed account is also compatible with other readings. For instance, it seems compatible with a conception of understanding as tracking truth only if it is in fact reliable, or well-calibrated (for instance, as proposed by Lipton 2004 and 2009); and it is compatible with a more pragmatist reading, according to which understanding consists in knowing how to perform an epistemic activity, and which takes truth as the by-product of certain types of understanding (cf. Chang 2009).

! 9

references Bangu, Sorin 2006: ‘Pythagorean Heuristic in Physics’, Perspectives on Science, 14, pp. 387-

416 Breitenbach, Angela (forthcoming): ‘Beauty in Proofs’, European Journal of Philosophy Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan 1987: Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in

Science, Chicago: Chicago University Press Chang, Hasok 2009: ‘Ontological Principles and the Intelligibility of Epistemic Activities’. In

H. W. de Regt, S. Lionelli and K. Eigner (eds.), Scientific Understanding, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 64-82

Friedman, Michael 1974: ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, Journal of Philosophy,

71, pp. 5-19 Friedman, Michael 1999: Dynamics of Reason, Stanford: CSLI Publications Giordanetti, P. 1995: ‘Das Verhältnis von Genie, Künstler und Wissenschaftler in der

Kantischen Philosophie: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtungen’, Kant-Studien, 86, pp. 406-430

Hallyn, Fernand 1990: The Poetic Structure of the World, New York: Zone Books Hoffman, Banesh and Helen Dukas 1972: Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, New York:

Viking Press Holmes, Richard 2009: The Age of Wonder, Harper Press Jardine, Nicholas 1998: ‘The Places of Astronomy in Early-Modern Culture’, Journal of

History of Astronomy, 29, pp. 49-61 Kant, Immanuel 2000: Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed., and trans., P. Guyer and E.

Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Koriako, Dario 1999: Kants Philosophie der Mathematik: Grundlagen, Voraussetzungen,

Probleme. Hamburg: Meiner Lipton, Peter 2004: Inference to the Best Explanation, London: Routledge Lipton, Peter 2009: ‘Understanding Without Explanation’. In H. W. de Regt et al. (eds.),

Scientific Understanding, pp. 43-63 Livio, Mario 2000: The Accelerating Universe, New York: Wiley McAllister, James 1996: Beauty and Revolution in Science, Ithaca: Cornell University Press Poincaré, Henri 1908: Science and Method, translated by Francis Maitland, London: Thomas

Nelson & Sons Rueger, Alexander 1997: ‘Kant and the Aesthetics of Nature’, British Journal of Aesthetics,

47: 138-155 Watson, James D. 1968: The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the

Structure of DNA, New York: Atheneum

! 10

Wenzel, Christian 2001: ‘Beauty, Genius, and Mathematics: Why Did Kant Change his Mind?’, History of Philosophy Quarterly, 18, pp. 415-432

Wigner, Eugene 1960: ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics’, Communications on

Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, pp. 1–14 Zee, A. 1999: Fearful Symmetry, Princeton: Princeton University Press

president: Sarah Broadie (St. Andrews)

president-elect: E.J. Lowe (Durham)

honorary director: Lucy O’Brien (UCL)

editor: Matthew Soteriou (Warwick)

lines of thought series editor: Scott Sturgeon (Oxford)

executive committee: Ben Colburn (Glasgow) / Alison Hills (Oxford) / Rosanna Keefe (Sheffield)Marie McGinn (UEA) / Samir Okasha (Bristol) / Ian Rumfitt (Birkbeck) / Robert Stern (Sheffield)

executive administrator: Mark Cortes Favis

assistant editor: David Harris

editorial assistant: Lea Salje

t h e a r i s t o t e l i a n s o c i e t y

w w w. a r i s t o t e l i a n s o c i e t y . o r g . u k